ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / 2008 / Archives for July 2008

Archives for July 2008

The fathers of abortion

by 1 Comment

Of our most recent comments, one by reader Christy Knockleby hit on something that I feel needs further addressing. She said:

It seems to me that if we claim the decision is between the woman and her doctor, then it would make sense to let the men off the hook, doesn’t it? Of course they were involved in creating the pregnancy, but if they’re not supposed to be involved in the decision to abort…. why are we supposed to judge them for the woman’s decision? Except of course nothing is clear cut.

Indeed nothing is clear cut. What of the men who suggest, pressure, or encourage an abortion to a woman who decides to carry the baby to term? Chris Rock does a bang up job explaining this reality. (WARNING: This is Chris Rock, people. Be ready for some seriously foul language.) To cut to the chase, jump to the 2 minute mark.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjW4i67YC04]

All humour aside, what guilt does the man harbor, watching this unwanted pregnancy develop into a newborn baby; a doting child? How does that affect the father’s relationship with his child? And with his child’s mother? Statistics suggest that more than half of abortions involve coercion, either by a mate or a parent. Translation: Abortion is not purely a choice between a woman and her doctor.

So should these fathers of potential abortions keep silent? Pro-abortion etiquette would tell us so. One big problem with that: women don’t generally equate a man’s silence with love and support. Quite the opposite.

Saturday morning coffee

by Leave a Comment

Read this morning over coffee:

This feature from the Globe & Mail. I will go on the record saying that the stigmatization, guilt and shaming of women who have abortions is wrong. It doesn’t make abortion right however. This quote caused me to reflect:

Twenty-four years later, Ms. McDonnell says, little has changed: “When the characters in a hip contemporary comedy like Knocked Up can’t even bring themselves to say the word ‘abortion,’ something’s still very wrong.”

Uh… could that be abortion??

On that topic, it seems that the writers of Knocked Up are not the only ones suffering from that affliction. See Fr. Raymond de Souza’s excellent commentary on Morgentaler’s nomination to the Order of Canada.

And on a lighter note, I never thought I would be linking to this guy — and for his defense, as a former Liberal speechwriter, he will probably be mortified at being linked to by a pro-life blog — but this article made me laugh out loud.

Have a great weekend.

_____________________________

Andrea adds: Pro-lifers never have to shame or guilt women who have abortions. They do it to themselves. Apparently, because the

abortion involves a web of complex physical and psychological processes that themselves pull us in two directions at once. It involves our bodies, our emotions and our spirits in a way that engages us on many levels simultaneously, and that ensures that our response will be anything but simple.”

And now in severely non-academic language, because you are killing your own offspring, which certainly would engage those emotions on many, many levels, indeed. Yeeesh. I’ll go on the record saying I’m glad for the stigma. It’s not that I have ever, ever, treated anyone who had an abortion with anything other than respect, and to be frank, in the same manner as I treat everyone. It’s that what the “stigma” here is, is our conscience: that guilt that kicks in when you’ve done something terrible, and you know it. No need for me to look down on someone who has had an abortion, I’ve experienced this terrible feeling for other reasons, at other times.  And if we “eradicate that stigma”–we would be paving over our consciences. People have been known to do it. But distancing your actions from your conscience so entirely is not generally a good thing.

I blame rampant individualism

by Leave a Comment

A letter writer has recently implied that it’s the right-wing, western-based, redneck crowd that is to blame for all social ills… that pro-life types are nowhere to be found when babies are born and that young girls who get pregnant benefit from abortion–flourishing careers, you know. As a 20-something (now 30-something) who got unexpectedly pregnant after one year in university and who sacrificed her studies (I have a law degree but was never admitted to the bar) to raise a family this question is of more than academic interest.

13 years later, I have completed some of my studies but my career is unmistakably mommy-tracked. I had dreams of traveling the world and I now find myself the least traveled person of my acquaintance. I have carried my pregnancies to term and I do harbor regrets about all the things I might have been able to do, especially when I look at my peers who are paying off their mortgages at 35 while I wonder how the heck I will pay back the $60 000 line of credit I incurred to buy a Master’s degree and with it, the possibility of developing a career.

These struggles are supposed to make me pro-choice. They don’t.

We live in a misogynistic society. This is not our children’s fault so much as our own. When we flaunt abortion as the panacea for our inability to recognize motherhood as an important contribution to society and to acknowledge that mothers may have ambitions in life other than motherhood – ambitions that are not per se incompatible with motherhood but that are made so by a myopic outlook on motherhood and ambition – we effectively reinforce prejudices against mothers, children and families. This is the heart of my position against abortion.

I am not “anti-choice.” I only firmly believe that choice in matters of pregnancy has effectively reduced the range of options available to women in society. And this occurred principally when we made childbearing a personal choice for which women alone are held accountable.

Where pregnancy is a personal choice for women alone to make, everyone else is off the hook. Fathers, families and society. You might blame “anti-choice folks” for being nowhere once a child is born. I can personally assure you, pro-choice liberals aren’t anywhere to be seen either.

For proof, I could rhyme off anecdotes from my personal experience over the last 13 years – which covered both Liberal and Conservative governments by the way – but this post is getting long enough. Let me leave you all with this homework assignment: I submitted my Master’s thesis in late June and have been looking for work since early April with no success. I am well qualified but completely inexperienced. I have spent 12 years raising five children and finished my law degree and got a Master’s degree but I don’t have experience. That’s a problem—incidentally, not pro-lifers’ fault. Had I aborted my babies, I would have plenty of experience by now. Employers demand this experience, why? Because they can. And certainly since pregnancy is a choice, they don’t need to accommodate women who don’t choose experience over life.

About three weeks ago, I found myself a little queasy and peed on a stick. Surprise: I am – very unexpectedly – 2 months pregnant. And still looking for work (see aforementioned “$60,000 line of credit.”) Now, that’s complicated. Who looks for work pregnant? Who hires people for 6 months? Where is my mat leave after 6 months? What guarantees do I have to have my job back after I give birth? Don’t look, there aren’t any, I already checked. The choice of abortion has made unexpected pregnancies an aberration, a thing of the past. Abortion and its correlating ideas about motherhood-only-when-convenient and as an individual choice have created a brick wall with a one-way sign and a prohibited u-turn for women.

P.S. I should add that I have just found work for the next six months with a pro-life, so-con employer who knows about my pregnancy. Liberal pro-choicers—top that.

What does this say about our priorities?

by Leave a Comment

Barbara Kay in the Post is returning to one of her favourite themes: the inequity to men built into the mechanisms that award and enforce child custody. Keep in mind that this is a conservative-ish pundit writing in a conservative-ish newspaper. Lamenting the unfairness confronted by men has come to be the libertarian-right’s answer to mainstream feminism – superficially speaking truth to power, but really just going over the same talking points and not convincing anybody who didn’t already agree with you.

You know what would be really brave? Writing an editorial telling people that if they want what’s best for their kids, they’ll find a way to stay together and make it work. Yes, fathers are often treated poorly by the courts; yes, children need good relationships with both of their parents; yes, there are incentives that reward false accusations of abuse; yes, some women abuse the system. But better and fairer divorce is a pretty pathetic solution to this pervasive mess. Look, I’m all in favour of doctors developing better ways to treat bullet wounds. But a civilized society puts the emphasis on preventing people from getting shot in the first place, not just providing excellent care once they’re already wounded.

Challenging the debate

by Leave a Comment

An interesting opinion in today’s Ottawa Citizen. The author is admittedly pro-choice, believing that abortion must remain a question of individual conscience, but comes swinging against Morgentaler’s Order of Canada nonetheless. I would love to hear more discussions like this one, where the outcome of the debate — should Morgentaler have been nominated? — does not hinge on one’s moral position on abortion. Morgentaler’s nomination is wrong for many more reasons than his morals (or lack thereof).

That being said, I must still register my disagreement with the author’s statement that a fetus’ moral status can be circumscribed by its inability to value its own life. I recently had to take my dog to the veterinarian to be euthanised, a decision I don’t wish on anybody. My oldest daughter was tearfully telling me, a couple of days later, how heart-breaking it was to see the dog go in the car like it was just another car ride, and had he known, etc. Warnings about the uselessness of anthropomorphizing the dog went into deaf ears. The dog didn’t understand where he went — or why — and while to Liesl this was heart-breaking, I found it somewhat comforting. Some years ago I read Sister Helen Prejean’s Dead Man Walking and I cannot yet wrap my head around the expectancy of death, particularly when it comes at the hands of another. Assuredly, the ability to value one’s own life makes looking forward to one’s own death with more poignancy or fear. Similarly, we could say that people who take their own lives do so at the end of a tragic road of self-devaluation. However, I do not think that we can so easily equate moral status with self-valuation. Because, if you will allow me a moment of very bad taste, I’m not sure my 2-year-old son is yet able to value his own life. In fact, according to the decibel register at my house lately, he would convince anybody that his life is very miserable. Still, if I took his life, I would not only be a criminal in the eyes of the law but a very sick or rotten individual in the eyes of everybody else. In a nutshell, the ability to value one’s own life may be enough to abortion supporters but it doesn’t explain why it no longer matters after the child is born.

__________________________________

Rebecca adds: To take Véronique’s point further: at the moment, we (as a society) do not believe that the elderly infirm can be killed because they may not be aware of their own existence and consciousness, nor do we believe this about people of any age suffering brain damage that impairs their consciousness. There are alarming signs that this may be changing, though, thanks to the valiant efforts of Peter Singer and his fellow travellers.

Not so fast, Rabbi

by Leave a Comment

A Saskatchewan rabbi criticizes a Catholic bishop who is protesting Morgentaler’s Order of Canada medal.  Here is the full text of the news article:

Saskatoon’s Roman Catholic bishop is calling on followers to protest the awarding of the Order of Canada to abortion-rights crusader Dr. Henry Morgentaler earlier this month. However, Bishop Albert LeGatt’s initiative is being criticized by a rabbi who says Dr. Morgentaler has done more for women’s rights than the Catholic Church. Saskatoon Rabbi emeritus Roger Pavey of the liberal congregation Agudas Israel said Bishop LeGatt was misguided, adding that even Orthodox Judaism considered abortion acceptable in some cases.

First, it is facile and offensive to suggest that Morgentaler has done more for women’s rights than the Catholic Church.  It reflects naked hostility to Catholicism that is unbecoming in a senior clergyman, profound bias, or ignorance of recent history, or most likely some blend of the three.  I’ll simply point out that given what we know about abortion and depression, breast cancer, and problems with subsequent pregnancies, Morgentaler has caused direct harm to many women quite apart from the actual damage women sustain when choosing to terminate a pregnancy.  The Catholic Church, like all massive and long-lived institutions, is imperfect, but in recognizing the sanctity of motherhood and encouraging women and men to form lifelong marriages, among others, it has certainly added to the net happiness of women in the world.

Next point: Rabbi Pavey points out that “even Orthodox Judaism” permits abortion in some circumstances.  This is absolutely true.  Rabbi Pavey assuredly knows, though, that those circumstances are very narrow, and in fact bear no resemblance to the circumstances in which Morgentaler has performed abortions.  Jewish law permits (and in some cases requires) abortion if continuing a pregnancy would kill the mother.  Note, please, that this is a vanishingly rare situation in 21st century Canada.  It is also noteworthy that there is no “mental health” exemption, which has been used to such mischief in some jurisdictions; since depression during and after pregnancy are largely treatable, the vast majority of Jewish legal authorities do not consider mental distress at an unwanted pregnancy to be a reason to abort. 

There are also abundant sources indicating that, as a developing life, a fetus has great value and sanctity – but not quite as much as an existing life, so that when there is a mortal conflict between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother, we must choose the mother.  By the time either the head or the majority of the body has emerged from the womb, though, the baby has equal status as the mother, and it is forbidden to choose between them – no partial birth abortions permitted, in other words.  Also significant is that the conflict between the life of the fetus and an existing life applies only to the mother, ie the life that would be directly threatened if the pregnancy continued; destroying a fetus to save a third life, or many other lives, is also forbidden.

Here we get to the real intellectual dishonesty of Rabbi Pavey’s words.  Pavey is the Rabbi Emeritus of a Conservative congregation in Saskatoon.  Conservative Judaism, like Orthodox Judaism, believes in the binding and eternal nature of the covenant between God and the Jews.  Unlike Orthodox Judaism, which believes (to reduce a complicated issue to one phrase) that Jewish law is fixed, and can be applied to new situations but must not be adapted, Conservative Judaism believes that the component of the law that is subject to human interpretation can and must evolve as the understanding, wisdom and knowledge of humans evolve.  Nonetheless, Conservative Judaism recognizes that not all abortions are permitted by Jewish law.  The official position of Conservative Judaism on the politics of abortion is to oppose any law that might prevent abortions in the (extremely narrow set of) circumstances in which it is permitted by Jewish law.

Abortion to save the life of the mother has been permitted in Canada throughout Morgentaler’s career.  The slightly more lax circumstances in which Conservative Jewish law finds abortion acceptable (abortion to prevent serious injury to the mother, or severe mental anguish) have also been accommodated in practice in Canada throughout Morgentaler’s career.  Abortions that are permitted within Jewish law, in other words, already were permitted within Canadian law, and this has nothing to do with Morgentaler.  On the contrary, the very essence of Morgentaler was to shatter this status quo in favour of abortion at any time, for any woman, for any reason, and ideally at the taxpayer’s expense.  And he was most successful.

To discard a human life in a cavalier manner is profoundly contrary to the Jewish tradition, law and ethos.  To oppose laws that restrict abortion on the grounds that such laws might infringe upon the (incredibly rare) situations in which Jewish law permits abortion – the official position of Conservative Judaism – strikes me as extreme, unnuanced, but logically coherent.  To celebrate a man who devoted his life to making life disposable – the most sacred earthly thing in Judaism, such that we are permitted to break almost any other law in order to save a life – is reprehensible, and deeply unJewish.

Rabbi Pavey undoubtedly knows the position of his own movement on abortion.  He almost certainly knows that Orthodox Judaism (and until this century all of Judaism) sees abortion as a last resort, a tragic measure to be taken only to save the life of the mother.  I don’t know what he is trying to gain by this statement, but he has managed to fit contempt for women, Jewish law and tradition, both Orthodox and Conservative, and Catholicism, all into a couple of sentences.  There are better ways he could be using his time – teaching Jews and non-Jews alike that our religion holds all life to be sacred, even a developing life in the womb. How about that?

Yeah, good question

by Leave a Comment

An interesting question over at LifeSiteNews: Why is the pro-life movement so Christian, and should it be? I invite you to read the piece for yourself – personally, I found the opening question fascinating. What came after the third paragraph was random and not nearly as logically tight as it should have been, but hey. [I never said I was easy to please.]

My short answer to “Why aren’t there more non-Christians in the pro-life movement?” is this: Because some Christians can be real off-putting. Especially the ones who won’t shut up about religion even when surrounded by ostensibly non-religious people. There are people I actively avoid because of that, even though they know (I can be very clear when I want to) I do not wish to hear about Jesus and how much they love Him.

I don’t mean disrespect; quite the opposite. I want everybody to respect everybody else’s preference in that regard. Especially when discussing issues that aren’t necessarily religious – like, yes, abortion. I know, understand, and sympathize with the view that says life is a gift from God and we, simple humans, shouldn’t be allowed to mess with it. It’s a strong argument against abortion (and euthanasia, and stem-cell research, etc.) but it’s not the only one.  

One of the reasons I agreed to join PWPL was Andrea’s insistence that it be non-religious. As she says, “ProWomanProLife believes abortion is a human, social issue, not a religious or faith matter, whereby women and men of any faith or no faith at all can stand up in support of women’s rights and life, at the same time.” 

That the pro-life movement should be overwhelmingly Christian due to the overwhelming presence of Christians in its ranks is one thing. It’s quite another to be so Christian as to cause non-Christians (or non-religious) people to refrain from getting involved. The line between the two is a fine one. But that doesn’t mean it should be crossed.

____________________________

Andrea adds: I read the piece, and thought there was a lot of meat there, lots to think about. That we should eradicate Christians from this struggle, as from any struggle, would be a big mistake. Our society is close (if not already there) to viewing religious folks as irrational, in every case. That’s just wrong.

I don’t believe abortion is a Christian religious issue: ie. You don’t need to be a Christ-follower to see what Christian pro-lifers see. But Christian beliefs, or call them Judeo-Christian values, are absolutely essential to this debate: Those are the values that teach us to value human life, just because.

First time you hit on a pro-abortion person who is honest enough to admit they know that there is a person there, but don’t care and think that taking that life ought to be a choice anyway–that’s where the rubber hits the road so to speak. When the abortionist analyses the “products of conception” and pieces the body back together to be sure that all those said products have been removed from the uterus, he knows he is faced with a person, a life.

The author is wrong on one thing: There is at least one famous pro-abortion person who became pro-life prior to any kind of religious conversion. That’s Bernard Nathanson–the founder of the largest abortion clinic in the United States. Read his bio, it’s fascinating. And disturbing. Perhaps becoming pro-life led him to become Christian, which he did, afterwards. But he became pro-life first. Your average Christian will say God can use any one of us, and that He works in ways we don’t understand. Any given day, I’d say that is true, for sure.

Over before it began

by Leave a Comment

By now you’ve all read Andrew Coyne on the abortion debate. Good piece and I appreciate it. I’m all for a debate. “The debate is over” is a pretty constant refrain amongst abortion supporters. Translation: “I personally enjoy–and agree with–the status quo.”

When are issues truly “over”? Perhaps we can declare certain issues to be decided and done-like-dinner with the benefit of hindsight–I’m talking the benefit of decades, maybe a century. But nowadays we seek resolution within 22 minute sitcoms and anything longer is protracted, unwieldy, divisive–or “over.”

Now reopening what was never actually broached would be great. But it’s not the debate I look forward to. It is the moment when we all unify in our civilized society to understand that killing babies in the womb doesn’t solve our problems. Reopening the debate is certainly a step in the right direction, don’t get me wrong. But it’s certainly not a pro-life thing to do or say.  The United Kingdom–they debated indeed, and couldn’t manage to limit the killing to a point when we’re sure the child isn’t fully sentient and doesn’t experience pain (their abortion limit is 24 weeks, some fetal pain experts argue a baby suffers his or her own death at 20. I’m not a fetal pain expert, and that’s not my point.)

So what is my point this cranky Wednesday? My point is this: The debate is not the point. It’s killing babies in the womb (abortion) that’s the point. I will never agree that killing babies in the womb is a solution. So as long as I’m living, there will be at least one girl to counter this here current status quo. There are of course, many more like me.  That means an ongoing debate, and one that one round of legislation couldn’t possibly solve. Get ready. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Meta